I was having an economic discussion with my father this past weekend and we got on to the topic of the unemployment rate.\u00a0 I remember hearing John Sumser in talk last year state that having a national unemployment number is pointless.\u00a0 Unemployment is local \u2013 it depends upon the region and, even more, the city in which you are employed.\u00a0 I agree completely with that premise.<\/p>\n
The current national unemployment number is listed at 9.8%, but there is much discussion about what the real number is.\u00a0 I have heard that it is closer to 16% if you factor in the people who have stopped looking and\/or had their unemployment benefits expire.\u00a0 Of course, the unemployment rate varies greatly from Detroit to Fargo.\u00a0 Hence, the national number isn\u2019t necessarily representative of what is happening in your city.<\/p>\n
My father was recalling a persuasive argument he heard from a professor in graduate school.\u00a0 This prof argued that the better statistic would be an employment<\/em> number.\u00a0 What percentage of people are employed?\u00a0 I know it may sound like splitting hairs, but I like the premise.\u00a0 How many people are presently employed?\u00a0 I think that number would be more illustrative, on a national level, than our current, questionable unemployment rate.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"